If you're a Christian and pro-choice, you're on the wrong side of the issue.

[Cush]

So I take it that you are all FOR harnassing bone marrow, blood, kidneys against a person's will in order to save the life of others?

Or is it suddenly not "selfish" to not donate your body parts to save the life of others?
Does a person who doesn't want to donate his kidney see life as "less valuable"?

Are you going to really argue about the sanctity of life or moral actions of others in later development if you can't even side with with most simplistic stages of life. Lemme guess, you see the similarity between a primate and a human but not an unborn child and human?

Do you flick the little Joeys from off the mother?

 

[Cearbhall]

Just prior to reading your post I saw on the TV an appeal for a childrens hospital; on it they showed children born without arms, legs, blind, etc. They talked to us....asked for support. Are they any less deserving of life because they have "congenital malformations"? Are they not people who should be afforded the right to live out their lives to the best of their abilities? [...] How about those with Down's Syndrome? The ones I have known have been the most loving, trusting, and honest people I have met; sort of like Jesus expects us to be. I do know that I have never heard anyone with "congenital malformations" state that they wished they had never been born.

I've already said multiple times that I don't believe there's any "should" here. I'm not advocating for eugenics, and like you, I am well aware that people who have Down's Syndrome tend to be wonderful people who lead full lives. I simply think that the choice is the mother's to make, and that this is particularly useful when she learns that her child will only live a very short and excruciating life.

Who is anyone of us to determine otherwise? Would we not be setting ourselves up as God to make that decision?

I don't have a problem with this.

 

[FireDragon76]

The medieval concept of "quickening" does not negate the belief that abortion is always sinful, it just reflects on how ancient people understood pregnancy before ultrasounds and microscopes.

To answer the first question, yes, you can be Christian and pro-choice. Pro-choice is a political position, not a religious belief. I've attended churches in the past that both believed that abortion was sinful and that it should be legal, so in some sense they were both pro-life and pro-choice.

 

[DogmaHunter]

All I hear from you are immoral statements. Because some harlot can't keep her legs from spreading.

Wauw. And *I* am the immoral one, ha?
You making generalised statements and calling people "harlots" is a-okay?


What's next?
Stoning rape victims for adultery?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Are you going to really argue about the sanctity of life or moral actions of others in later development if you can't even side with with most simplistic stages of life. Lemme guess, you see the similarity between a primate and a human but not an unborn child and human?

If you aren't going to bother addressing the argument that I'm actually making and instead are going to insist on arguing against a strawman, then why would I continue this conversation?

Please address what I am actually saying.

If X can't survive without your bone marrow, should X then have the right to FORCE you to donate bone marrow?

Assuming your answer is "no", I'll return your question to you: don't you care about the sanctity of life of X? Are you being "selfish" by not donating your bone marrow? Should you be jailed for the murder of X if you decide against donating this bone marrow?

 

[patricius79]

That's the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard- Proverbs 6:16-19. There's no more innocent than the unborn baby. I feel angry at woman who do and people that condone such actions that appeal to victimization. I would think that anyone with a conscience would feel angry at the taking of innocent lives.

"But I agree that it is clearly wrong, and is so destructive to women also."

It is clearly wrong, and by your argument I shouldn't feel compassion or injustice because someone walks up to you for no reason and punches you so hard in the face that they take your life. What are you going to claim that we can't judge anyone?

Are you going to appeal to others to take responsibility for you or demonstrate compassion for your life? If your own mother won't even do that, why should we?

1 Corinthians 6:3 - People can't even judge clear actions such as these (murder) and you're going to judge angels?

I do feel angry at the taking of innocent lives. But psychologically, I assume most women know that what they have done is extremely wrong. So I feel compassion for them.

I judge that abortion is gravely evil and should be illegal, but I don't judge the women who commit this sin.

 

[Cearbhall]

All I hear from you are immoral statements.

Morality is purely subjective. It's not a given that what you believe is what's right. I think that wanting to criminalize abortion is immoral, but that in itself is not an argument.

But psychologically, I assume most women know that what they have done is extremely wrong. So I feel compassion for them.

Do you have evidence of this?

 

[ranunculus]

Do you have evidence of this?

http://time.com/3956781/women-abortion-regret-reproductive-health/

Hardly Any Women Regret Having an Abortion, a New Study Finds

 

[ranunculus]

No matter how fanciful a situation you can think of it still would not negate the fact that abortion unjustly kills a human being , which is immoral.

But it's not a fanciful situation. It's everyday real life situation. Disregarding morality for a moment, zygotes can't be afforded the same rights as you and me for practical reasons alone.
Do you think that every miscarriage should be cause for a criminal investigation?

 

[DogmaHunter]

But it's not a fanciful situation. It's everyday real life situation. Disregarding morality for a moment, zygotes can't be afforded the same rights as you and me for practical reasons alone.
Do you think that every miscarriage should be cause for a criminal investigation?

It's very telling how all the "pro-lifers" seem to be avoiding this point like the plague.

The same goes for the arguments of forced harnassing of organs to save the life of others.

I've mentioned these points dozens of times in multiple threads and, if memory serves me right, only twice did people respond to them - and on both occasions they were non-answers and/or extremely vague.

Nobody seems to be prepared to actually properly address them in detail.

 

[TomZzyzx]

That doesn't anything.
It's not about the unborn. It's about the mother and HER rights.



The mother doesn't do any harm to the unborn's body. She has it removed from her body. That it can't survive outside of it is an unfortunate side effect.

Just like it is an unfortunate side effect that you would die without my kidney. That doesn't mean that I can be forced to give it to you.

You consistently speak about the "rights" of the fetus. What about the rights of the mother? They aren't important?

What about my rights when you need my kidney?

It's about both of them and their rights.

You ignorance at how an abortion is done it quite telling. The unborn is not taken out of the mother in its whole form, it's ripped limb from limb, taken out one pice at a time. Once every pice is out there is nothing left to survive the outside world. Has nothing to do with "side effects ".

 

[Strathos]

The mother doesn't do any harm to the unborn's body. She has it removed from her body. That it can't survive outside of it is an unfortunate side effect.

I'd love to see someone try this defense in court.

"Yes, your honor, I did forcefully hold this man's head underwater until he drowned, but I didn't do any harm to him. I merely moved him to a different environment, that he couldn't survive in it was just an unfortunate side effect".

 

[Cearbhall]

No matter how fanciful a situation you can think of it still would not negate the fact that abortion unjustly kills a human being , which is immoral.

But why is it unjust? Why might it be immoral? Those aren't givens.

I'd love to see someone try this defense in court.

"Yes, your honor, I did forcefully hold this man's head underwater until he drowned, but I didn't do any harm to him. I merely moved him to a different environment, that he couldn't survive in it was just an unfortunate side effect".

You couldn't possibly be further from actually understanding what he's saying. Hopefully you're able to see the difference between actively drowning someone and allowing someone to die by refusing to donate your body parts. The latter is, in fact, a 100% tight defense in court. There are no laws that force us to give of our body (literally) to maintain the lives of others.

 

[TomZzyzx]

But why is it unjust? Why might it be immoral? Those aren't givens.

It's unjust because the unborn child has done nothing worthy of death.

And it's immoral because killing a human being without justification is wrong.

 

[civilwarbuff]

There are no laws that force us to give of our body (literally) to maintain the lives of others.

I know a lot of drafted Vietnam Vets who would disagree with that assertion.

 

[Aldebaran]

I do. And there is a considerable risk. I went through several dangerous moments in my pregnancies. Of course, that will never happen to you, so you choose to know nothing of it.

It will never happen to me because I am a man. How is that a choice?

 

[Aldebaran]

That doesn't anything.
It's not about the unborn. It's about the mother and HER rights.

Sure! A baby being killed has nothing to do with the baby. Got it!

The mother doesn't do any harm to the unborn's body. She has it removed from her body. That it can't survive outside of it is an unfortunate side effect.

This sounds like something a Nazi medical experimenter would say as he sat on the witness stand after the war.

 

[Aldebaran]

This demonstrates that you haven't understood the argument AT ALL.
And, to me, it also demonstrate that you aren't interested in the argument either. Since it's been explained quite clearly...

The argument is about body autonomy.
This argument does not apply to a baby that is actually already born and not dependend anymore on having a HOST.

It was simply a question I was asking of someone else in the course of a discussion--with someone else.

 

[Aldebaran]

If X can't survive without your bone marrow, should X then have the right to FORCE you to donate bone marrow?

Assuming your answer is "no", I'll return your question to you: don't you care about the sanctity of life of X? Are you being "selfish" by not donating your bone marrow? Should you be jailed for the murder of X if you decide against donating this bone marrow?

Since donating bone marrow is not a legal requirement, a person wouldn't be sent to jail for not donating it to one in need of it to live. But it is still a morals-based decision. If you see someone in need of something you could give them, and you allow them to die, then you've decided that the other person's life wasn't worth your time.

 

[Aldebaran]

But why is it unjust? Why might it be immoral? Those aren't givens.

You couldn't possibly be further from actually understanding what he's saying. Hopefully you're able to see the difference between actively drowning someone and allowing someone to die by refusing to donate your body parts. The latter is, in fact, a 100% tight defense in court. There are no laws that force us to give of our body (literally) to maintain the lives of others.

Allow me to change the analogy slightly. What if a man was drowning and yelling for help, and you are on the beach or in a nearby boat, able to swim, and you just sit there and say, "That's your problem! Good luck to you!". You could say that the man ends up drowning due to circumstances he was in rather than anything you did. However, you could have saved his life, and you didn't. He died because of your inaction.